>> okay. can you see that now? >> clerk: you haven't shared your screen yet, david. christine, if you could go to jeff's screen as opposed to the brady bunch? >> how about now? is that -- >> clerk: yes, that's it. very good. thank you. >> so -- and can you see my cursor on the screen? >> vice president moore: yes, i can. >> all right. so i think looking at this elevation, this represents the ground floor addition. this -- this line represents the second floor. this ground floor addition

poppout we popout went out to the second floor level, and there was a deck on top of this roof. the project sponsor has dropped the level of this -- the ceiling of this ground floor by 3'7", and in doing so -- let me see if i can -- they had proposed providing stairs down from the second floor to the lower roof deck of this one-story popout. i'll show you the plan first if i can find i so the plan b is not in this drawing set, so let me just describe it from this aerial perspective. imagine, in looking at this

perspective, the deck was down here. there was a series of steps that came out of this door and descended down to the level of that deck. that was plan b. plan c proposed now is simply putting the balcony at the same level as the second floor and not having any steps, so it -- the balcony is higher. the roof of the first floor popout is lower, but the balcony itself is smaller than the roof deck proposed in plan b. this extends out 5 feet from the face. this extends 7 feet out from this rear wall. and i'm sorry, i can't make that graphically clearer with what i have readily available. >> vice president moore: yeah. >> perhaps -- you know what?

mr. lum's presentation might have that, as well. let me see. no. this one will actually show it here. so here's -- if i can zoom in, plan b. there's the stairs that go down to that lower balcony roof deck. can you all see that?

>> vice president moore: yes. >> clerk: we can, david. >> and then, by comparison -- let me zoom out. and this is the proposed plan c.

i do see commissioner johnson requesting to speak. >> commissioner johnson: thanks. that was my first question, was to see plan b and see a side-by-side. a couple of additional comments. i actually agree with president koppel, that i think the addition is modest. i think plan c is potentially the better design. it's more elegant. they also do want -- just listening to one of the neighbors, just a reiteration, both of the views are not protected, and that people are entitled to remodel, regardless of if they were born or how

long they've lived at a property. so i just want to make sure that we are, in the name of fairness, helping people. just making a note that we don't make a note of residency in making our decisions. i think this is a modest addition, and i am in support. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have one remaining question, and that is that -- somehow, i'm a little uncomfortable on the third floor, the east side, that is still really close to mr. temple's home, and i would like to see a matching condition on the east and west side on the third floor to create a little more breathing room to the east side of the

expansion. generally, i would agree that the square footage of the expansion is modest, however, i would agree with mr. lum that the narrow property exacerbates people feeling very much crowded in by each other, but that is kind of unfortunately the nature of any kind of expansion no matter where you are, with a 25-foot property or a 20-feet property, it's pretty much all the time. but i would like to point out, mr. winslow, if you would put up the last three-dimensional image of the project. i would like to see a matching of the east and west side in order to give mr. temple a little more privacy on that upper floor.

the drawing slid down, mr. winslow, so it's harder to see. >> would this be good to see? >> the planter creates some privacy, and it doesn't show that on the east side. i'd like to see that on the addition, as well. >> clerk: is that a motion? >> vice president moore: yes. >> commissioner johnson: second.

>> clerk: so if i understand correctly, commissioners, there is a motion to take d.r. and approve the project with the modification of providing similar set back on the east side as exists or is proposed on the west. >> vice president moore: yes, on the third floor. >> clerk: on the third floor. very good. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner diamond: jonas, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner diamond: i have a question for commissioner moore. are you saying you want to notch the balcony the same as -- >> vice president moore: mm-hmm. >> commissioner diamond: so he loses a couple of square feet.

>> vice president moore: but i believe it creates a little more breathing room and a better privacy issue when you look out. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i have a question. the problem that mr. temple has is with the second floor, not the third floor. >> vice president moore: thank you, commissioner fung, for pointing that up, but i think the addition of a transom window should alleviate that concern. staff has already modified

that. >> commissioner fung: there was a sketch on the deck of the second floor. could mr. winslow confirm that? >> i'm sorry. i couldn't hear you. what is it? you're breaking up on my end. >> commissioner fung: mr. winslow, is the privacy issue on the second floor or the third floor? >> i believe it's primarily -- well, to the d.r. requester, it's on the east side, the second floor. to the west, i believe it's both the third floor and the second floor extends beyond their existing conditions, and they would like to have that pulled back at both those levels. >> commissioner fung: and with the pull back, my suggestion to commissioner moore is that on

the second floor deck, adjacent to mr. temple's side, that we determine that there be a six-foot high opaque screen there at the edge of the deck. >> vice president moore: i can accept that as a motion or pulling it in, either way, commissioner fung, you're correct. >> clerk: is the second amenable to the motion amendment? >> commissioner johnson: yes, i am. >> clerk: so the new motion is to take d.r., approve the project, provide a similar set back on the third floor on the east side as there is proposed to be on the west side and include a six-foot high opaque screen on the second floor on mr. temple's side. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner diamond: a

six-foot high -- >> yeah, i want to chime in here on behalf of the d.r. requester. i think part of the concern was not just about privacy, but was a sense of being boxed in, and that condition might exacerbate that concern. >> commissioner fung: please repeat that again, mr. winslow. you were breaking up. >> yeah, sorry about that. on behalf of mr. temple's concerns, not only was privacy a concern, but being boxed in was part of his concern. i feel the imposition of a six-foot high privacy screen at that second level would exacerbate the issue with respect to his feeling boxed in. i don't know how to, you know, request his opinion on that at

this point, if he is available, but i don't think that would be an ideal solution from his standpoint. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, i don't -- >> commissioner fung: i don't think we can have it two ways. >> commissioner johnson: so i was thinking it would be good to have flexibility. many people put plantings or plants as a way to provide privacy. i think that might be more kind to everyone as opposed to a wall, but i think it would be used to create something other than people looking at people, i trust they can find a way with planters or other types of things to make that happen. >> commissioner fung: agreed. it could be a planter.

>> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: you could also consider a notch because i don't quite understand why, from the second floor, it takes five steps to come onto this balcony. if the deck has been lowered by 3 feet, as i heard mr. winslow described, why are we seeing so many stairs coming down from that floor? i don't quite understand that. >> so just for clarification, the plan that this -- the preferred plan from the project sponsor is that the deck -- there is no steps down to a roof deck. it is a stepout balcony that extends 5 feet from the second floor as set back 3.5 feet from each property line. the roof of the first floor is 3'7" below the second floor,

and that is simply a roof. so there are no stairs to a deck. >> vice president moore: okay. okay. it's so difficult. the package is so unwielding. >> it's unwielding. >> vice president moore: it's totally unwielding. i see what you're saying, and i would agree with commissioner fung as well as commissioner johnson, that a green planting would create the grade separation that we're looking for. >> clerk: very good, commissioner moore. is that an amendment to your original motion? >> vice president moore: that's correct. >> clerk: and is seconder agreeable? >> commissioner johnson: yes. >> clerk: okay. let's try this one more time. everybody stay with me. we're taking d.r., and we're going to approve this project with the condition that the sponsor provide a set back on

the third floor similar to that is proposed on the west side on the east side and to provide a privacy screen via some form of greenery or planter box for mr. temple's side. on that motion -- [roll call] >> commissioner diamond: i have a question about that. i would -- if we can figure out how to get mr. temple's opinion, i would appreciate it. it could be that he -- i don't know if putting a greenery reason or some other screen there blocks his views. he may prefer to have it just the way it is rather than planters there. i'm fine with the planters, but that's extra, and i don't know if he would like that or not. is there a way to get mr. temple on the phone. >> hi, this is mr. temple if

you wanted to ask me some questions. >> clerk: jonas, may i a . >> commissioner diamond: jonas, can i ask mr. temple some questions? >> clerk: yes, please. >> commissioner diamond: mr. temple, would you like the privacy screen the way it is adjacent to your property? >> a low planted privacy screen would be better. >> commissioner diamond: how many feet are we talking about? >> 4 feet? >> commissioner diamond: commissioner fung and moore, is that fine with you? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> vice president moore: yes, it is, and i think what we would also ask for, that the screen is properly maintained throughout the year. >> commissioner diamond: with

those amendments, jonas, aye. >> clerk: okay. with a low planting privacy screen to be maintained throughout the year that doesn't exceed a height of four to 5 feet -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. we are getting to the end of our agenda. in fact, we are on our last item, so i beg all of your patience, including my own. item 19, case number

2018-013511 drp at 350 liberty street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> i am. can you see and hear me? >> clerk: unfortunately, yes. i'm turning my mic off. >> very well. good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. this is a discretionary review of building permit 2018-09211017 to create a three story front addition to the third floor of an existing three-story single-family home. a deck on the second floor is also proposed at the front and side of the location at 350 liberty street.

a neighbor is concerned that the project does not respect the topography and is out of character and not compatible with that of other buildings on the street. his proposed alternative is to set the project back 15 feet and set the slope. to this end, the project has received no letters of opposition and no letters of support. additionally, the planted median of liberty street aids in the relative subornation.

staff found that the d.r. requester's concerns regarding scale and character are not exceptional and extraordinary and recommends not taking d.r. this concludes my presentation, and i'm ready to share my screen with the presenters. >> clerk: very good, then. is the d.r. requester prepared to make their presentation? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you, david. if you could please share your screen to show or brought the d.r. requester's presentation. it is up on the screen as we speak. d.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> okay. thank you. dear commissioners, thank you for taking the time. my name is philip androlini. i live at 355 liberty street. my wife and i have lived in the location since 2005, and we are

raising our kids here. liberty street is a very special street. we have a green island in the middle of the street, thought of as an island. we think this project requires a second look as we believe, in its current form, that the project does not respect the topography of the street and does not reflect the architectural setting of its neighbors. it will bre we have a fairly ominous ensembles of facades on the right side of the street. on the upper side -- next slide, please -- there are two homes, while different looking, that are similar mass, height, and impact on the street.

this addition will further make the current house stick out in the street, and its glass and angular design will break in style with the home next to it. next slide, please. its design calls for intention instead of blending in with the rest of the facade. we believe it's not compatible with surrounding buildings and its own front facade, creating a weird mix of traditional at the bottom and modern at the top. according to s.f. residential design guidelines, in order to maintain the visual interest of the neighborhood, it is important that new designs and renovations of existing buildings fit in with surrounding buildings. also because of the unique split level in our street, this

will be felt stronger on our side of the street than for people walking and driving on the west side of the street. liberty street consists of two lanes set at different levels. contrary to the staff conclusion, we believe unique topography will be impacted by the proposed addition. the proposed addition will be more visible than it would be on a flat street. the unique topography of liberty presents exceptional circumstances which requires d.r. to be taken by the commission. this may also set a precedent for other people on the block to break in the mass harmony on our